Archive for May, 2014

Mr. C attacks some generally accepted notions about black holes. It appears that the introduction of test particles is inadmissible to him. A test particle, freely falling in a gravitational field, feels no change in energy and momentum, and mathematically, we describe this situation in terms of comoving coordinate frames. This does not fit in C’s analysis, so, test particles are forbidden. A test particle is an object with almost no mass and almost no size, such as the space ship Cassini orbiting Saturn. C calls the use of almost“poetry”, but in fact this is a notion that can be defined in all mathematical rigor, as we learn in our math courses. C is “self taught”, so he had no math courses and so does not know what almost means here, in terms of carefully chosen limiting procedures.

Mr. C. adds more claims to this: In our modern notation, a radial coordinate r is used to describe the Schwarzschild solution, the prototype of a black hole. “That’s not a radial distance!”, he shouts. “To get the radial distance you have to integrate the square root of the radial component grr of the metric!!” Now that happens to be right, but a non-issue; in practice we use r just because it is a more convenient coordinate, and every astrophysicist knows that an accurate calculation of the radial distance, if needed, would be obtained by doing exactly that integral. “r is defined by the inverse of the Gaussian curvature”, C continues, but this happens to be true only for the spherically symmetric case. For the Kerr and Kerr-Newman metric, this is no longer true. Moreover, the Gaussian curvature is not locally measurable so a bad definition indeed for a radial coordinate. And why should one need such a definition? We have invariance under coordinate transformations. If so desired, we can use any coordinate we like. The Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are an example. The Finkelstein coordinates another. Look at the many different ways one can map the surface of the Earth on a flat surface. Is one mapping more fundamental than another?
“The horizon is a real singularity because at that spot the metric signature switches from (+,-,-,-) to (-,+,-,-)”, C continues. This is wrong. The switch takes place when the usual Schwarzschild coordinates are used, but does not imply any singularity. The switch disappears in coordinates that are regular at the horizon, such as the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. That’s why there is no physical singularity at the horizon.
But where does the black hole mass come from? Where is the source of this mass? R μν = 0 seems to imply that there is no matter at all, and yet the thing has mass! Here, both L and C suffer from the misconception that a gravitational field cannot have a mass of its own. But Einstein’s equations are non-linear, and this is why gravitational fields can be the source of additional amount of gravity, so that a gravitational field can support itself. In particle theories, similar things can happen if fields obey non-linear equations, we call these solutions “solitons”. A black hole looks like a soliton, but actually it is a bit more complicated than that.
The truth is that gravitational energy plus material energy together obey the energy conservation law. We can understand this just as we have explained it for gravitational waves. And now there is a thing that L and C fail to grasp: a black hole can be seen to be formed when matter implodes. Start with a regular, spherically symmetric (or approximately spherically symmetric) configuration of matter, such as a heavy star or a star cluster. Assume that it obeys an equation of state. If, according to this equation of state, the pressure stays sufficiently low, one can calculate that this ball of matter will contract under its own weight. The calculation is not hard and has been carried out many times; indeed, it is a useful exercise for students. According to Einstein’s equations, the contraction continues until the pressure is sufficiently high to stop any further contraction. If that pressure is not high enough, the contraction continues and the result is well-known: a black hole forms. Matter travels onwards to the singularity at r = 0, and becomes invisible to the outside observer. All this is elementary exercise, and not in doubt by any serious researcher. However, one does see that the Schwarzschild solution (or its Kerr or Kerr-Newman generalization) emerges only partly: it is the solution in the forward time direction, but the part corresponding to a horizon in the past is actually modified by the contracting ball of matter. All this is well-known. An observer cannot look that far towards the past, so he will interpret the resulting metric as an accurate realization of the Schwarzschild metric. And its mass? The mass is dictated by energy conservation. What used to be the mass of a contracting star is turned into mass of a “ball of pure gravity”. I actually don’t care much about the particular language one should use here; for all practical purposes the best description is that a black hole has formed.
But has it really? Isn’t it so that the collapsing star hangs out forever at the horizon? Well, in terms of the Schwarzschild coordinates, this is formally true! The Schwarzschild solution is the asymptotic limit of the solution in the forward time direction. At finite times, the region behind the horizon does not exist. However, for this analysis, one can better use the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, where one does notice that the future part of the horizon does exist. This discussion is compounded a bit because the construction of the maximal extension of spacetime is subtle, and it is certainly not understood by C. Think of a map of the North Pole of the Earth, where it could be that coordinates were chosen such that they cannot be extended across the equator. Formally, the equator is then a horizon. But nobody who’s walking on the equator has any trouble with that.
These self proclaimed scientists in turn blame me of “not understanding functional analysis”. Indeed, L maintains that there is a difference between a mathematical calculation and its physical interpretation, which I do not understand. He makes a big point about Einstein’s “equivalence principle” being different from the “correspondence principle”, and everyone, like me, who says that they in essence amount to being the same thing, if you want physical reality to be described by mathematical models, doesn’t understand a thing or two. True. Nonsensical statements I often do not understand. What I do understand is that both ways of phrasing this principle require that one focuses on infinitesimally tiny space-time volume elements.

PS: For the curious, Mr L is C.Y.Lo: Chief Scientist and bottle-washer at a non-existent research institute.

“The fringe dogmatists have used the vilest kind of personal animosity for years, so have alienated not only scientists and engineers, but the general readership.”

So how come they do not all rush to your defence? Why does nobody write an article about you and ECE for a popular science magazine, why are you not inundated with supportive e-mails? Why do we never receive critical comments on your behalf. In fact, we once received a comment – supporting us – from (as proved by ipa-tracking) – an AIAS staff member. Just fancy that!

“In dismissing ‘t Hooft’s unpleasant and obsessive personal animosity, Kerry Pendergast and Gareth Evans independently made the point that only time with tell when it comes to choosing between ECE and the standard model. However, we no longer have to wait for time to tell, because we can use the attached data of The Book of Scientometrics to extrapolate confidently into the future”

Nope, present-day mathematics proves ECE wrong right now, and the scientometrics are bogus: there is no independent proof that they exist. All that exists is a sad little isolated cabal of wannabee physicists centered on one arrogant unemployed chemist. If it were not for the outrageous fact that idiots awarded him a Civil List pension, even we would lose interest.

For those who cannot find it, this is what t’Hooft has to say about Ron.

Einstein had it totally wrong, and so on. Indeed, how could I forget the most vociferous player of the anti-Gerard-’t-Hooft club: Mr.E., who not only advocates a complete revision of General Relativity, but also Elementary Particle Physics and even electro-magnetism. Nearly all of present-day Theoretical Physics is based on unbelievable errors, according to E. He was quiet for some time, but now asks me to admit the errors of my ways, resign, step down as Chief Editor of Foundations of Physics, and return my Nobel prize. His arguments are difficult to follow because of a murky notation, which presumably explains how he could go so astray in the first place. For example, he asserts that “the Riemannian connection field is antisymmetric, not symmetric, in its two lower indices”, which implies that we (Einstein together with many others) “forgot to consider torsion in our field equations”, and that, “of course, the connection field should be antisymmetric, because commutators are antisymmetric, not symmetric!” Well, I’m sorry for E, but a connection field isn’t a commutator. One could say that the only commutator involved is the commutator between two partial derivatives, which vanishes. In Particle Physics, one may regard the gauge vector potential as a connection field, and that’s antisymmetric in two of its indices (for orthogonal gauge groups) or anti-hermitean (in other cases). In gravity, one may complement the connection field with a connection for the local Lorentz group, which is nearly but not quite antisymmetric, because the Lorentz group is not quite orthogonal. It’s the Riemann curvature field that may be regarded as a commutator, and it is antisymmetric in its last two indices. So, how does E “prove” that the Riemannian connection field is antisymmetric? His arguments in his paper 139, eqs. (9)-(12), can be summarized as follows. To be proven: A=B. Proof:

A=B+(A-B)A=B+… A=B

A proof that he concludes with a triumphant “Q.E.D.”

Fact is that, if the Riemannian connection field were to be chosen antisymmetric, it could not serve as a connection field at all, as its coordinate transformation rulecontains an important term ∂ 2xλ/ ∂xμ ∂xν , which is symmetric under interchange of the indices μ and ν . But E continues, suggesting to harvest free energy out of vacuum fluctuations or things such. O, yes, according to E. the photon has a mass of 5.10-41 kg, which would give electromagnetic fields a range of no more than 7 mm, indeed a drastic modification of the Standard Model.

“I agree completely with Kerry Pendergast, and these remarks by the two former EDCL colleagues put things in perspective.”

Of course you do; mutual admiration is all that you have.

“This organized campaign of villification [sic] reminds me strongly of totalitarianism of any variety. It was organized by so called wikipedia moderators, so reduces wikipedia to rubble in the context of avant garde physics.”

The fact that many people come independently to the same inescapable conclusion does not mean that they are organized. You know that; it is like when you claim that a ‘conference’ has been held on ECE when all that has really happened is a series of coincidental visits (like buses turning up in threes).

“It is also deeply offensive to Crown and Parliament in Britain, and to society in general. It only takes good people to remain silent in the words of Burke, but they are not being silent, the entire international community has had enough of these lies.”

No it is not. It is the ‘good people’ who are pointing out your misdeeds (such as advocating that conmen like Searl should be financed by the UK government or illegally advocating quack cancer ‘cures’). We shall never remain silent.

“Kerry Pendergast makes an especially important point in that the scientometrics show a sea change in the subject.”

Unfortunately it is clear that the scientometrics are bogus. You provide the only ‘evidence’ that they exist. Google Scholar (and Scopus) prove that there is no interest in your post-breakdown ‘work’. Perhaps you would care to explain why, if your crackpot theory is so widely accepted, you are not inundated by supportive e-mails, why we never receive any mail or comments defending you, and why Penderghastly’s book receives only negative reviews (apart from the one by Penderghastly himself that is).

“In my opinion ‘t Hooft’s activity is dangerously close to being that of a troll, dangerous for him that is.”

Rubbish: expressing a fact-based opinion which reflects the views of the vast majority is not trolling.

“Police Commissioner Alun Michael in Wales has condemned trolls as criminals. There is no statute of limitation on verbal common assault or harassment in the first degree, and a determined Government could bring prosecutions at any time in the future. Troll sites also incite to violence, another serious offence.”

We agree entirely. Trolls who do criminal things are reprehensible. However, merely pointing out facts that you alone do not accept is not trolling, and any threats exist only in your paranoid mind.

“The younger generation of Welsh speaking Trustees or their Appointees would be allowed to live here free of rent and as free of as much as the charges as possible (council tax, gas, coal, water, electricity, maintenance and so forth). ”

What will Mrs Ron will make of that? Or is she expected to practice some sort of suttee?

“The AIAS group is world famous because of the scientometrics. The words “world famous” are so over used in society that they have almost lost meaning, but in our case they are true objectively. The Book of Scientometrics is famous in its own right, and has taken over a decade of meticulous work to compile. ”

Let’s see: if the ‘book of scientometrics’ is so famous it should return lots of Google hits. How many does it actually give? Oh, only 15? And all of those but one are due to Ron. How clever the millions of followers are at avoiding detection by Google.

Ron and his gang of clowns are paradigms of crackpot behaviour: they produce a theory that ‘fits only where it touches’, refuse to engage in discussion with others and – moreover – claim that the theory promises a brave new world of perpetual-motion and antigravity machines (the latter are always the driving ambitions of pseudoscientists). Now, a valid new theory should be able to reproduce all of the phenomena that are explained by the old theory. We have noted in the past that Ron’s fatuous theory is willingly used to explain orbits, but is silent on tidal effects. Here is another example: many new solutions to the three-body problem have recently been discovered. Ron’s theory should be able reproduce these solutions … if it is valid. Over to you Ron.